The whole idea revolves around taking a rational approach to architecture. More over questioning that approach. Why does architecture have to answer a ‘why’? Why can’t intuition be taken to the highest level to control our decisions? Why can’t the process, what i mean is every single act; conscious or other-wise be responsible for the exact being of something in the present? It is due to all that has happened in the past that I am the way I am and so are we all. Why can’t architecture be a literal record of this detailed journey.
In this the reflexes take over the mind. The mind being conscious that it can only curn out what is put in….here tries to manipulate itself….and starts without any particular image or goal or a fixed aim or a fixed object and tries to manifest the journey. Irrationality taken to the extremes, that does not mean it cannot be justified, the theory of manipulation is a strong theory. In architectural study it has taught me that any thing is justifiable. Since abstraction has no fixed reference, it is like a sphere, it can be seen from all directions yet it would appear a circle. Anyways, so in a way justification is irrelevant. That’s according to me. So, its debatable.
This studio is a complete expression of this thought process, its chaotic, intuition based but records the process better; better than the thought that concentrates on the end product.
Moreover, it also traps the symbolics of the guys who have influenced my architectural mind. The only opening helps to identify the singularity within a chaotic environment. Those pointed columns are the way they are because of the idea discussed above. 3 main service blocks. Those small things in front are the parking block,the gray ramp leading to the studio…2 main design blocks. These are some technical details.
I do this in class profs would have failed me. So, I had to do this now. Ten years down the line I might still look at this and perhaps laugh. It is a complete manifestation of my present ever changing architectural understanding; nothing more it is at least successful in trapping and freezing that energy.
So, guys what do u feel about it…….waiting eagerly. Bye
I got your point
I got your point of reasoning. You are trying to say that what you are now (at present) is a product of your past activities and there was no one there to question your decisions you took in the past which made you the man you are in the present. To summarize, you are a product of your past intuitions..
Now, you want to argue that why architecture can’t be like that. Please correct me if I got you wrong.
My opinion to this is, when
My opinion to this is, when your reflexes take over your mind, it is not necessary that every one of them is right. There may be right ones and the wrong ones, but again the mind has the power to choose between them. Here comes the point where mind has to “justify” one over the other.
If the mind is successful to give a supporting justification for any of these “intuitions”, then that idea becomes strong and can be agreed upon.
What I mean to say is that, architecture is a science of asking your mind for justifications to things you “feel intuitively” are correct. If you are able to support your ideas with correct justifications, your design should stand to be totally valid.
thanks rohit………but i
thanks rohit………but i feel a bit doubtful on this idea of justification….justification which is so very much put into our heads during these 5 years….still since justification is itself standing on a manupilative platform which is standing,which on further analysis ends up into personal ideas and beliefs,which donot have any factual base…..that is if u n i agree on a point ,,,that does not mean that point is valid….it only means tha point somewhere coincides with our common bias on the topic…….so i reality i feel this whole idea of justification is in vaalid….and should not be exercised beyond a point………so intuition…..which originates from the mind still does not follow where the mind has to take us……since the mind itself does not know the pathnorthe end result…………so…..any way this is open to debate……………do write in your views guys………
hey you also wrote about the
hey you also wrote about the right decisions n the wrong onees…………see i feel (n u also no that)that there is nothing such as wrong or right in design……u cant tell frank gehry wrong and peter eisenman right…….everyone is right in their fields and in their thought processes……so it is not true that the justifications and reasoning erupting from your head will lead you in the right direction….since these justification s indeed have a wobbly base…..soooo…